|
|
|
|
 News |
| |
|
 Discussions |
| |
|
 Resources |
| |
|
 Members |
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
kpeavey
Suggest Quote |
|
| |
|
|
|
Photo Album
Submit Photo
|
member photos
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 The preoccupations of an age are often given away by its choice of prophet. In the 90s, Karl Marx came back into vogue, not as the John the Baptist of the class struggle, but as a reliable guide to globalisation and its discontents. Old Whiskers was even the subject of a long New Yorker essay, which argued that Wall Street types had nothing to lose by reading him. Over the last couple of years, it has been Thomas Malthus's turn in the spotlight. The spectre of "Pop" Malthus, as students referred to his work on population growth, has hovered over the recent arguments about record food and fuel prices. His warnings about how growing populations would outstrip food supply are often echoed by greens and on blogs. And today the British Medical Journal weighs in, with an online opinion piece that is essentially Malthus-lite.
The problem that the BMJ authors and others highlight is real; the solution they give, however, is plain wrong. True, a shortage of food is only heightened by a rising population; the same goes for tackling climate change. The statistic one often hears from the population-control lobby is that the world will have 9.2bn people by 2050. Someone born in 1950 who lives to be 100 will see the global population grow well over threefold. That may sound scary, but it does not prove a direct causal link between commodity supply or greenhouse gases, and population growth. The proper link is between consumption and commodities, and between emissions and climate change. Anything else is a side issue.
Guardian
|
|
Posted on Saturday, July 26 @ 18:34:45 PDT by Leanan |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Score: 2
Votes: 1
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| "Login" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
